It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Netanyahu: Sneak Attack On Iran If Elected

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I think that if the Palestinians want to be recognized as a true, independed state, then they should change their name.....to the Philistines. After all, there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" prior to 1918. If they want to claim some ancient birthright to the lands they currently occupy, then they should at least try to attach themselves to an actual culture / society / nation that actually occupied those territories at some point in the past.

The term seems to be most appropriate to me.




posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
No "ancient claim" is necessary, fact is they were there first.

Should they have accepted partition in 1948? Sure.

That doesn't mean the people living in the West Bank and Gaza now don't have a right to keep their homes and govern themselves now. Even Israel (except for a small but vocal minority) recognizes that these days.

Hence Sharon, and not Netanyahu, is likely to be running Israel for the forseeable future, and Likhud is going the way of the dodo.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Yeah, anti-Semitism is quite rampant on ATS and is hardly ever dealt with or censored by anyone.



Why is it that any criticism of Israel and her policies are immediately labled as Anti-Semitism. I will agree that some people are heavily biased in there opinons and verge on Anti-Semitism, that doesnt diminish the validity of the questions being asked... try answering the questions instead of jumping up and down about the poor oppressed people of israel.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Why is it that any criticism of Israel and her policies are immediately labled as Anti-Semitism. I will agree that some people are heavily biased in there opinons and verge on Anti-Semitism, that doesnt diminish the validity of the questions being asked... try answering the questions instead of jumping up and down about the poor oppressed people of israel.


Why is it that those who counter those who criticize Israel and her policies always have to deal with those same individuals always spouting out garbage such as "poor oppressed people of Israel"?





seekerof



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   


Why is it that any criticism of Israel and her policies are immediately labled as Anti-Semitism.


Because it's a good cheap shot tactic, you can slap an insulting label on someone without having to directly address their arguments.

Any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic bigotry, any criticism of US policies is rooted in anti-Americanism. It's the right wing equivalent of the PC stuff.

I have seen genuine anti-semitism on ATS, usually followed by the poster being banned in short order - good riddance IMHO. Meanwhile anti-Islamic hatred (not just against Islamist terrorists, but all Muslims) is frowned upon but mostly tolerated... the times we live in I guess.




[edit on 12/13/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   
ArchAngel, I would like to have a go at your Armor of Impenetrability. Please addrees all my points:

1)

Originally posted by ArchAngel
(67
Without warning, flying low under radar in a dawn raid the Israelies bombed the Arab airforces as they sat on the ground.

(now
Without clear proof of Iranian intentions any Israeli attack on Iran would be a Sneak attack.[Unless they stand up and say 'Hey guys, we're attacking now!]
Basically your saying that any attack in the history of the world (that wasn't conducted by a moron) is in fact a sneak attack, so there is no special need to justify any particular Israeli attack. If you call the landing on Normandy a 'sneak attack', then that's just your synonymous to 'attack'.
And if that's not enough - does this means you accept that the 67 war was not a 'sneak attack' because there was "clear proof of arab intentions"? They announced their intentions to the world after all, AND backed it up with actions.
Just to be on the safe side - can you define 'sneak attack' please?

2)

If Israel would give back what they stole when they invaded in a sneak attack what would they have to complain about then?
In fact both palestinians and the surrounding countries tried to wipe-out Israel since before it's inception. Apperently the six-day war was not the root of all why-arabs-deslike-israel. See:
en.wikipedia.org...
Arafat himself said that after he drove Israel to the 67 borders, he'll keep pushing untill it's gone. Even today it's the Explicite intentions of the HANAS and Iran.

3)

I have been supporting the Palestinian Christians...
Then surely you should oppose the Muslim Palestinians. Just this week I saw a news item about how muslims drive christians out of Beth-Lehem by forcefully buying land, property etc'. There used to be 8 mosques there 10 years ago, now more then 80. Not to mention under the PA they have far less rights for religious freedom. They might become the next Copts.

4)

Israel does not have smart bombs that can tell the difference between Islamic Terrorists, or innocents of any religion.
But there is intelligence. Christian Palestinians are rarely involed in terrorisem, so they are rarely arrested and aren't targeted for assassinations.

5) Make up your mind about the Iranian nuclear bombs production. All is well EITHER because you think there is no evidance they are (or will) build them, OR because they build them but they are allowed.
You can't have both. Different arguments stem from each.

6)

...the wall clearly show Israels intentions were hostile when they invaded...
The wall is just a security barrier, counter-terrorism measure. It was build only because of suicide attacks, and reduced them by 90% (!!). It can be moved or torn-down, It's not a political border. Noticed it was built just now, not at 67.

7)

They (Egypt) politely asked the UN to withdraw the troops for their own protection. Note that the Israelies did not do this because they were planning a sneak attack.
Not even the Egyptians claim that. In fact the UN troopes were there to guard against war. They received an ultimatum to evacuate. Had they done their job for which they were put there, they would have stayed to oppose the Egyptians. The Israelies did not do this because they didn't want war. Had the UN troopes stayed, there would have been no war. If a guard will walk away because the criminal "politely ask" him to leave, he isn't much of a guard, is he?
Again with the 'sneak-attack'? Did I mentioned Israel declared that if Egyptians break the intenational agreements and enter Sinai and close the straits, it's (two) Casus Belli and therefore they where technically already at war for weeks before Israel attacked?

8)

In the days before they ran a propaganda campaign where they claimed the IDF officers had been given time off, and even showed vidoe of men enjoying a day at the beach.
I think you're talking about the Egyptians the day before their sneak-attack in the 73 war.

9)

The issue of spent fuel is quite another thing, and I believe Iran has agreed to allow them to be shipped out of the country.
No they didn't. Russia suggested but Iran refused.

10)about the 50,000 palestinians coming to Israel.

Thats all people who had families in Israel.
Need I really mention that the number of Palestinians from Israel who left to join their families in the PA is 0 (zero)? What Riwka ment is they rather live in Israel. That's the reason Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are very sougft-after as brides and grooms in the PA. If one of the newcomers wants to become a citizen, there is a due process like in the US, Europe or any other country. All countries controll immigration this way.
One of the ideas for the peace agreement, is to transfer ownership of land between Israel and the PA, so that areas with many jews will be joined to Israel and same-size areas with many palestinias will be given to the PA. The idea is to minimize conflict by incresing social cohesion on both sides, without actually moving the people. Israel and the PA want it, only the Israeli Palestinians to be joined with their future country reject it fiercely, even thought Israel will still take care of their social benefits etc'. I guess they DO prefare it here.

11)

Despite their claims to be democratic Israel is a racist nation.
What do you base it on? By law all citizens in Israel are equal.

12)

I was speaking of the economy in Palestine. Israel has destroyed it.
We were at war they started. These things happen at war.

13)

How do you tell if a nation is the aggressor in a war? You look at the ground under their boots. If it did not belong to them before the war they are the aggressors.
You really put your foot in your mouth with this one. Was Poland the aggressor in WWII? After WWII Poland occupied (to this day) land that was Germany's before the war. What if someone is the defender in a war but wins non-the-less? Is he not allowe some compensation?
I guess it leads to a broader question: What kind of compensation deemed reasonable from an aggressor who started a war but lost? (and don't say none).

14)

I support equal rights and freedom for everyone in the area. Since Israel will not allow it for the Palestinians they have no right to occupy after two generations.
The one thing standing in the way of a treaty with the palestinians is what we demanded from any peace treaty: They have to stop trying to kill us. That's the step they're stuck on in the road map. If they could only give that up they could have had a country long ago. What is most important to us is security.

15)

Aquiring territory through the use of force is not admissable.
Isn't that what the palestinians are trying to do?
But seriously, that's another big one. How long must a country hold territory before it is admissible as a legitimate part of it? Now I'm waiting to see which countries you will claim to have illegitimate borders. (and I'm not talking just about the US)

16) Israel had never occupied Arab Palestine. It never existed. Palestine cannot be liberated, it can only be created. Several times in the past Palestinians had a chance to declare independence in some part of the region, they never did. The territories in dispute today are not stolen, they are abandoned by Jordan and Egypt who declared they didn't want them anymore (we tried to give Egypt the Gaza strip in the peace treaty - they objected strongly). In any treaty with the Palestinians, the boarders should be reached by mutual agreement. Why should it be by the old border between Israel and Jordan? They didn't have a country there, did they?

And one last thing. If not for the 67 war, the Palestinians would never have a country! The population of Jordan today is 60% Palestinians. No one thinks to give them a country there, even though it's on the terittory of the old (british mandate) Palestine.



My grandmother was an Anti-Zionist Sephardic Karaite Jew, and I loved her dearly.

Karaite you say? Now that is interesting. They are a sect that departed from Judaism during the 8th century. At least I know she wasn't Anti-Zionist from religious reasons. Because being a Karaite shoudn't affect any modern day dillema.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Parmenides]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
No "ancient claim" is necessary, fact is they were there first.



If you are still trying to claim (from lunar orbit) that the so-called "palestinians" were there first, that is prior to the Israelis, that claim is false in any legitimate history text. The so-called "palestinians" were simply there last - before the Israelis were given the territory by the UN - after a long succession of conquering states had taken the land for themselves.

There was a state called Israel located in that area around 3,000 years ago, but no so-called "palestine".



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
This is true, we learned about this in a class I took about ancient history. What more proof does anyone want? The Romans came and conquered the Israelis at one point. They were conquered at some other point as well, cant remember by who, maybe someone can help me there.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
This is true, we learned about this in a class I took about ancient history. What more proof does anyone want? The Romans came and conquered the Israelis at one point. They were conquered at some other point as well, cant remember by who, maybe someone can help me there.


Example: Josephus was originally a Israeli Jew that became a Roman historian around 70 AD, who chronicled the Roman crushing of a Jewish revolt back then. Its real history, not the revisionist crap that's peddled by the PC crowd these days.

The Babylonians (iraq), Assyrians, Persians (iran), Egyptians, Romans, Byzantines, muslim arabs, Crusaders, Turks, British/French (did I leave anyone out?) all conquered the area after Israel established a state at this location. There never were any such people as the so-called "palestinians". The so-called "palestinian state" was dreamed up by the muslims with assistance from the media as a lightning rod for anti-semitic public opinion.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parmenides
Basically your saying that any attack in the history of the world (that wasn't conducted by a moron) is in fact a sneak attack, so there is no special need to justify any particular Israeli attack. If you call the landing on Normandy a 'sneak attack', then that's just your synonymous to 'attack'.
And if that's not enough - does this means you accept that the 67 war was not a 'sneak attack' because there was "clear proof of arab intentions"? They announced their intentions to the world after all, AND backed it up with actions.
Just to be on the safe side - can you define 'sneak attack' please?



The 67 war was a sneak attack because Israel attacked first while creating the impression that they were not.

As you say the Arabs stated their intentions, but the Israelies did not making their attack a sneak attack.


In fact both palestinians and the surrounding countries tried to wipe-out Israel since before it's inception. Apperently the six-day war was not the root of all why-arabs-deslike-israel. See:
en.wikipedia.org...
Arafat himself said that after he drove Israel to the 67 borders, he'll keep pushing untill it's gone. Even today it's the Explicite intentions of the HANAS and Iran.


Put the shoe on the other foot, and look at the history of the land for the past thousand years.

If you were them you would want the same.

Why would you allow land that was yours to be given away to a foreign ethnic group by Foreign nations.

BTW: At the time the UN did not compose most of the world, so it did not carry the same legitimacy as it does today.

The entire Arab world was against it at the beginning so the creation of Israel was not elgitimate.


Then surely you should oppose the Muslim Palestinians....


I don't oppose any people. I oppose the actions that deny the Palestinians liberty.

Occupation is not liberty.


But there is intelligence. Christian Palestinians are rarely involed in terrorisem, so they are rarely arrested and aren't targeted for assassinations.


They have their homes bulldozed, and their land stolen from them just like any other Palestinians.

They are denied liberty by the Israeli occupational forces.

PLEASE don't go pointing the finger at anyone else than the ones doing the actions.

There has NEVER been a Palestinian Christian terrorist.

[quoet]Make up your mind about the Iranian nuclear bombs production. All is well EITHER because you think there is no evidance they are (or will) build them, OR because they build them but they are allowed.
You can't have both. Different arguments stem from each.


They have a right to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes.

The UNIAEA has the right to inspect their facilities.

There is no proof they have produced weapons grade Uranium, and unless you have a working crystal ball you can't say what will happen in the future.


The wall is just a security barrier, counter-terrorism measure. It was build only because of suicide attacks, and reduced them by 90% (!!). It can be moved or torn-down, It's not a political border. Noticed it was built just now, not at 67.


It is a land grab.

If Israel were going to build a wall to protect itself it would build it around its border.

It has built the wall around the Palestinians well within their land instead.

Look at any of the maps of the path and tell me with all honesty that it is equitable.


Not even the Egyptians claim that. In fact the UN troopes were there to guard against war. They received an ultimatum to evacuate. Had they done their job for which they were put there, they would have stayed to oppose the Egyptians.


Their job was to monitor, not to enforce.


The Israelies did not do this because they didn't want war. Had the UN troopes stayed, there would have been no war.


A few blue hats were not going to stop a war.

The unit was not able to stand against a single war plane let alone two armies.

That is silliness.


If a guard will walk away because the criminal "politely ask" him to leave, he isn't much of a guard, is he?
Again with the 'sneak-attack'? Did I mentioned Israel declared that if Egyptians break the intenational agreements and enter Sinai and close the straits, it's (two) Casus Belli and therefore they where technically already at war for weeks before Israel attacked?


I am very well aware of the events leading to the Israeli sneak attack.

Acts of war are committed around the world all of the time.

That does not mean there is a state of war.

A military attack such as the Israeli sneak attack is not required as a response to the Arab actions which were only words.

Words don't kill people.


I think you're talking about the Egyptians the day before their sneak-attack in the 73 war.[/quote[

No, I am talking about the Israelies leading up to their sneak attack in 67.


No they didn't. Russia suggested but Iran refused.


I don't feel like digging up references so why don't you prove me wrong to avoid this ping-pong game.


10)about the 50,000 palestinians coming to Israel.
Need I really mention that.....


You don't need to say anything because I already proved my point that Israel has racist immigration policies making them un-democratic.

If you want to go off on a different tangent feel free to wander.


What do you base it on? By law all citizens in Israel are equal.


Israel has no defined borders.

Israels has racist immigaration policies, and that they pronounce themselves to be a Jewish Nation.

Christians are not allowed to promote their religion, or even hand out bibles.

Many businesses only allow Jews, but its a crime to not allow Jews.

How many non-Jewish Judges are there?

Can you name a single one?

There is much more, so maybe I need to start a thread on all of the racist policies, and laws of Israel.

The Israeli STATE is an interim government in violation of its own founding document for failing to create a constitution.


We were at war they started. These things happen at war.


The war that Israel started when they invaded in a sneak attack ended long ago.

Attacks on Palestinian infrastructure, closures of crossings, Israeli control of borders, and import taxes are not required in this supposed 'war'.

They only cause suffering for the Palestians.

No defense is obtained from these and countless other shotile actions.

You really put your foot in your mouth with this one. Was Poland the aggressor in WWII? After WWII Poland occupied (to this day) land that was Germany's before the war. What if someone is the defender in a war but wins non-the-less? Is he not allowe some compensation?


In order to be a defender you cannot be the one to attack first, and later occupy land.

That is aggression.

Did Poland allow everyone on the land full citizenship?

Your parallel fails on many levels.


I guess it leads to a broader question: What kind of compensation deemed reasonable from an aggressor who started a war but lost? (and don't say none).


Again, it was Israel that attacked first.

They were the aggressor.

If land is taken anywhere for any reason the people on that land must be afforded full citizenship, and equal rights.


The one thing standing in the way of a treaty with the palestinians is what we demanded from any peace treaty: They have to stop trying to kill us. That's the step they're stuck on in the road map. If they could only give that up they could have had a country long ago. What is most important to us is security.


Outright denialism.

You know Israel wants the land more than anything else in the world, and it is centered on the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Israel is not giving up Jerusalem without being defeated outright, and you know it.

Red Hot Temple Lust is the real reason Palestinians are not liberated.


Isn't that what the palestinians are trying to do?


How can they try to take what is already theirs?

They are trying to gain freedom from illegal occupation.


But seriously, that's another big one. How long must a country hold territory before it is admissible as a legitimate part of it? Now I'm waiting to see which countries you will claim to have illegitimate borders. (and I'm not talking just about the US)


As long as it takes for them to make all of the people full citizens.

This is the biggest difference between the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and other long term occupations.


Israel had never occupied Arab Palestine. It never existed.


Denialism.

It was called Palestine under British occupation.

Even the Jews were Palestinians back then.


And one last thing. If not for the 67 war, the Palestinians would never have a country! The population of Jordan today is 60% Palestinians. No one thinks to give them a country there, even though it's on the terittory of the old (british mandate) Palestine.


To 'give them a country there' means the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF FOUR MILLION + PEOPLE.

Why not a nation where they are now, as they have been for decades.

Because of Israels lust, thats why.



Karaite you say? Now that is interesting. They are a sect that departed from Judaism during the 8th century. At least I know she wasn't Anti-Zionist from religious reasons. Because being a Karaite shoudn't affect any modern day dillema.


They did not depart from Judaism, they declared their independence from the Talmudists.

Theirs is the religion of Torah while yours is the Religion of the Babylonian Talmud.

Either way Israel says that they are Jews.

Do you consider yourself a higher authority?

There are at least four different Jewish religions, Samaritans, Karaites, Talmudists, and Kabahlists.

Some would say Messianic Jews are also Jews, but Israel does not.

They all have different holy books, and religious ritual, and all are Jewish.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Theirs is the religion of Torah while yours is the Religion of the Babylonian Talmud.



That is wrong.


Originally posted by ArchAngel


There are at least four different Jewish religions, Samaritans, Karaites, Talmudists, and Kabahlists.



As said before, this is wrong.

e.g. Pop Star Madonna claims to be a 'Kabbalist'. But she is NO JEW.

  • Jews are a nation, a people

  • Judaism is a religion - The four main Jewish religious denominations are:

    • Orthodox Judaism
    • Conservative (Masorti) Judaism,
    • Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism
    • Reconstructionist Judaism



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Judaism is a religion - The four main Jewish religious denominations are:

* Orthodox Judaism
* Conservative (Masorti) Judaism,
* Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism
* Reconstructionist Judaism


As I said earlier, those are the four different branches of Talmudism.

Are you denying that the Samaritans are Jews?

Are you also denying that the Karaites, and Kabbalhists are Jews?

Their religions are different from the Talmudists.

They may be the large majority, but the Talmudists are not the only Jews.

Maybe we should instead say that there are seven Jewish religions, and add the Samaritan, Karaites, and Kabbahlists that you neglected in your list.


As said before, this is wrong.

e.g. Pop Star Madonna claims to be a 'Kabbalist'. But she is NO JEW.


OK, not a Kabbalhists are Jews, but most are, and Israel recognizes the ones with Jewish ancestors.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
In order to be the defender you must not attack first? This is just not true. If there is a threat looming on your borders with 3 different countries, lets not forget, Saudi Arabia and Iraq also sent troops for the 67 war to Jordan. Egypt had already committed an act of war when they blocked Israels shipping lanes, as I have mentioned numerous time. When you cut a nations life line, that is their imports and exports off, the UN recognizes it as an act of war. Arch Angel why wont you admit that just because Israel did make the first attack, they didnt make the declaration of war, Egypt did.

*SNIP*

The city of Jeruselam is a holy site for both Israelis and Palestinians, thats something those two countries need to work out. As for Israel giving up east Jeruselam, it aint gonna happen, and the Palestinians wont give up their half, they just need to learn to coexist.

Israel has historic claim to these lands, as was pointed out earlier. Whatever you say, it doesnt disproove that fact.

Here you go, if you want an even better reference to the history of the mid-east and ancient Israel. Check out the Bible, not for religous but for histrical purpose. King James version recommended for its direct translation from original form. But I guess this will do.
pmw.org.il...

The Palestinians may have been there for decades. The Jews have been there for 3 millenia(3000 years). The really sad part of this whole situation is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its the fact that their so called Arab brothers use them to continue and justify their fight against the Jews. To them, the Palestinians are nothing more than a bargaining chip to them, they dont care about them at all except to use them. If you dont believe me why is it everytime an Arab leader tries to make peace with the Israelis, he is assassinated, ie. Sadaat, and King Abdullah?

Why does giving them a country mean killing 4 million of them? Whos gonna do the killing. Themselves? They do seem to like killing each other as much as they like killing Israelis.

I dont know much about the sects of Islam or Judaism. But I do have a fun little comparison of education in the cultures. Where the Arabs have erased all positive information in their text books about the Israelis. The Israelis still teach positive information about Islam and Arabs.
www.edume.org...
www.edume.org...
There you go, make the comparison yourself.

Mod Edit: Civility & Decorum.

[edit on 15/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

As I said earlier, those are the four different branches of Talmudism.



it is still wrong.

A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. And nobody else.

Since there are many people who are Talmudists or Kabbalhists or whatever who are neither born to a jewish mother nor have gone through the formal process of the conversion to Judaism, one can NOT say this is a jewish "religion". Talmudists or Kabbalists - if Jews - can be of all 4 denominations within the Jewish religion.

As said before, Popsatr Madonna claims to be a kabbalist, does NOT belong to the Jewish people.


Yes, and of course you have had a grandmother and one of your distant cousin is whatever....
...do you really think, if you would have had Jews in your family, this justifies anything you say or do?



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Arch Angel why wont you admit that just because Israel did make the first attack, they didnt make the declaration of war, Egypt did.


Because its simply not true.

Egypt did not declare war until after the Israeli sneak attack.

It all goes back to the claims that Israel has some moral right to take land.

If the Arabs had attacked first the claim might have had some value, but with Israel as the aggressor all the while claiming self defense the right to take land is simply not there.

You can't steal land from your neighbors by invading in a sneak attack just because you 'knew' that they were going to attack.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka

A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. And nobody else.

Since there are many people who are Talmudists or Kabbalhists or whatever who are neither born to a jewish mother nor have gone through the formal process of the conversion to Judaism, one can NOT say this is a jewish "religion". Talmudists or Kabbalists - if Jews - can be of all 4 denominations within the Jewish religion.

As said before, Popsatr Madonna claims to be a kabbalist, does NOT belong to the Jewish people.



The Samaritans, and Karaites are Jews, and their religions are different.

ALL of the four groups you list recognize the Talmud, but the Samaritans and Karaites do not.

Do you deny that they are Jews?

[edit on 15-12-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Do you deny that they are Jews?




A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. And nobody else.

Point.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Do you deny that they are Jews?




A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. And nobody else.

Point.


This is not true.

Karaites observe Patrilineal decent, not Matrilineal decent.

You are a Karaite Jew if your father or grandfather was a Karaite Jew.

The idea that you are a Jew if your Mother was one comes from the Babylonian Talmud, not the Torah.

Jew defines an ethnic group, not a race, religion, or nation.

There are many Jewish religions representing many different people.

Accepting the Talmud is not required.

Again, do you deny that Karaites, and Samaritans are Jews, or not?



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I wouldnt consider it pre-emptive when military leaders in Iran are meeting with Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terrorists groups. Not to mention funding the military wings of these groups which in turn attack Israel through Iranian type weaponry. Israel is only doing what is needed if they attack Iran, taking it to the main source. Im all for it.

Also this is not only a Netanyahu thing, Sharon has raised the alert level of the military and has Israels equivelant to the SAS planning on how to take out multiple sites in Iran and has had cabinet members say they will strike if this is not resolved through diplomatic reasoning.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Dreamz]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

The idea that you are a Jew if your Mother was one comes from the Babylonian Talmud, not the Torah.



That is wrong,as already explained to you.

  • In Dewarim (= the 5. Book of Moses = Deuteronium ) 7:1-5 G-d says "he [ie, the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse.

    From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse of a Jewish woman is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism),
    but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).

  • Wajikra (3. Book of Moses = Leviticus) 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (ie, a Jew).



Originally posted by ArchAngel

Jew defines an ethnic group, not a race, religion, or nation.


This is wrong, as already explained to you.

Jews are a people, a nation - and there is even the Jewish State of Israel which hich guarantees the right of every JEW to immigrate to Israel and to become a citizen immediately upon arrival.


Originally posted by ArchAngel

Accepting the Talmud is not required.



Right, this is NOT required, since a Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.


[edit on 15-12-2005 by Riwka]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join